Stolen Avatar Images

[sr71plt]

I wonder how the Web site handles the theft of an image of someone entirely unrelated to Literotica and not having given permission to have her/his image slapped on a pornographic Web site (as well as other copyrighted images used without permission)? Does the Web site think it has no responsibility for hosting stolen images--especially of people who haven't given permission to be imaged on a pornographic site? How does it vet the images used as avatars and fulfill it's own copyright responsibilities?

Somehow I would think that when we considered "innocent" folks in this sort of thing, the non Lit.-member whose image is being used deserves more attention than the Lit. member stealing and using someone else's image as an avatar without having to show ownership of that image.

(And in case anyone wonders, my avatars are book covers that I own.)

 

[BiTodd]

I think you hit the nail on the head when in your second paragraph you mentioned the lit member that steals... they are culpable. Let's not blame the site that is so generous to let us be here free of charge. Let's not assume lit is responsible for it's members behavior. If we continue in that vein eventually there won't be places lime this to air our views.

(By the way all of my avatars are pics of me)

 

[sr71plt]

I think you hit the nail on the head when in your second paragraph you mentioned the lit member that steals... they are culpable. Let's not blame the site that is so generous to let us be here free of charge. Let's not assume lit is responsible for it's members behavior. If we continue in that vein eventually there won't be places lime this to air our views.

(By the way all of my avatars are pics of me)

That's not how the law works. Of course I assume Web site liability, because that's the law. The publisher is equally responsible for what they publish. And guess who can be most easily tapped when someone goes looking for a violator?

A source on shared author/publisher responsibility:

https://ochsnerjournal.wordpress.co...ement-who-is-responsible-author-or-publisher/



From Literotica's FAQs (the point being that transfer of nonexclusive copyright use rights is still a transfer of copyright use rights in law):

If I submit a story to Literotica, do I still own the copyright?

Absolutely. You are simply granting us a non-exclusive right to publish your story on Literotica.com and granting Literotica the right to enforce the copyright on your story should it be used without your permission by any other publication - online, print, or other media.


The defense of "I decided it isn't convenient to follow the law" won't fly in court.

 

[SecondCircle]

Well, while this is technically correct, typically this is a "shit outta luck" kind of thing. When anyone posts pictures publicly on the internet in spaces that are not private, it's there for anyone to copy/paste/download etc. So there, it becomes a thing of "why did you post this picture where it can be downloaded and saved to any computer".

Exceptions would be where sensitive data like pictures is supposed to be safeguarded. Such as someone's private profile behind passwords online. This would mean a hacker would have to actively bypass security measures in place and "steal" them. As is done to celebrities pretty regularly.

But as far as an image just being publicly available on the internet? It's usually viewed as "don't put it out there knowing it could be downloaded and used in any manner."

I mean technically if my personal picture were freely available online and someone were using it in ways I thought to be slanderous or abusive, yeah I suppose I could pull them for some kind of charges. But guarantee that it will be looked at by courts as "um, okay? Why the hell did you upload it to public spaces on the internet?" Take a look at the picture threads here on Lit. They are linked pictures to other websites, like Tumblr usually, but um... anyone can just go over there, click, and save those images of real people and use them in any manner imaginable.

As avatars are concerned, go to any forum imaginable and you will see this. Go to a heavy metal forum? You're bound to see an image of Godsmack's tribal sun being used as an avatar or Rob Zombie's likeness being used as an avatar. Go to a gaming forum? You're going to see Kratos, Master Chief, Ezio Auditore da' Firenze (all characters owned by those companies) as avatars for say, usernames DarkStar45 and KingVader-Pussy1002. These users with these avatars may be saying incredibly wretched things involving racism, sexism, or abusing others freely online. But uh, no they didn't purchase rights to Rob Zombie's picture or clear it with the Singer to bash black people on a music forum.

It kinda becomes one of those things where it's like, Yeah, technically they could be brought up on ridiculous charges, but there's really not a point. There are a fuck ton of images you can just search and set as an avatar and no one would really know, care, or see any benefit whatsoever as to stopping it. It's the internet. If the image is out there, rest assured some dickhole is saving and downloading it to use as he pleases. This came up when PayDay posted here a while back, (obviously the candy bar company didn't give him the go ahead to use their name and icon for his avatar on an erotic story forum). I seriously doubt unless the poster is making national news and running their name in the dirt that they'd waste the time to care. Posters on forums are a dime a dozen dude. And they've got images from a shit load of real people, brand names, movie characters, and on and on and on.

 

[oggbashan]

My avatar is me.

<---

 

[Nathan_Brazil]

My avatar is me.

<---

Careful... Yer gonna get them nattering about personal info again.

 

[rjordan]

A couple of points. Copyrights and trademarks remain valid only if they are enforced. If you let one person use the material withoput permission and don't enforce it, you are open to losing your case if you try to enforce it on another.

I did a lot of work for an automotive publisher who published a VW book in the mid-60's. On the first page, he used the VW-in-a-circle logo that everyone is familiar with. Volkswagen sued. Turns out VW never trademarked it, so the publisher having been the first one to publish it, owned the VW logo. That only lasted for a very brief time. They settled quickly.

That same publisher reproduced factory repair manuals and sold them under their name. VW must have seen a chance to get back at them. They sued the publisher for copyright infringement. Uh oh. Several other publishers had been doing the same thing for years. They hadn't done anything about it. They lost that case too.

The likelihood of a lawsuit over an avatar here on Lit is remote, but it could happen. What would probably happen is the perp would get a strongly worded cease and desist letter from an attorney. The avatar would be taken down and no further action would be taken. That's because litigation is expensive. They would likely have to prove damages, and the defense attorney would be digging up examples where no enforcement action had been taken. It COULD result in a lawsuit, but it's very unlikely.

BTW, my current avatar is a shot of my '58 Pontiac Bonneville taken in 1972 wearing my crew cap.

rj

 

[SecondCircle]

A couple of points. Copyrights and trademarks remain valid only if they are enforced. If you let one person use the material withoput permission and don't enforce it, you are open to losing your case if you try to enforce it on another.

I did a lot of work for an automotive publisher who published a VW book in the mid-60's. On the first page, he used the VW-in-a-circle logo that everyone is familiar with. Volkswagen sued. Turns out VW never trademarked it, so the publisher having been the first one to publish it, owned the VW logo. That only lasted for a very brief time. They settled quickly.

That same publisher reproduced factory repair manuals and sold them under their name. VW must have seen a chance to get back at them. They sued the publisher for copyright infringement. Uh oh. Several other publishers had been doing the same thing for years. They hadn't done anything about it. They lost that case too.

The likelihood of a lawsuit over an avatar here on Lit is remote, but it could happen. What would probably happen is the perp would get a strongly worded cease and desist letter from an attorney. The avatar would be taken down and no further action would be taken. That's because litigation is expensive. They would likely have to prove damages, and the defense attorney would be digging up examples where no enforcement action had been taken. It COULD result in a lawsuit, but it's very unlikely.

BTW, my current avatar is a shot of my '58 Pontiac Bonneville taken in 1972 wearing my crew cap.

rj

Yeah I think this is on point.

Could you imagine just how many internet avatars would be in "violation" of this?

 

[lovecraft68]

I don't think the site cares.

But at some point they are going to have to as revenge porn and related crimes become targeted more and more.

On that note forget avatars. How many threads in the ampic forum some asshole guy posing as a woman and posting pics of their ex (or current wife gf) without permission?

A lot of pic threads here are reposts of pictures from pro porn sites but check out the on/off pic thread in the fetish forum. Most of those pics are obviously stolen private photos being passed from site to site.

Lit is not going to care until something is done legally to make them care.

 

[SecondCircle]

I don't think the site cares.

But at some point they are going to have to as revenge porn and related crimes become targeted more and more.

On that note forget avatars. How many threads in the ampic forum some asshole guy posing as a woman and posting pics of their ex (or current wife gf) without permission?

A lot of pic threads here are reposts of pictures from pro porn sites but check out the on/off pic thread in the fetish forum. Most of those pics are obviously stolen private photos being passed from site to site.

Lit is not going to care until something is done legally to make them care.

I'm not sure very many sites care. There are literally millions of photos on the internet that are quite clearly photos of real people.

You'd have to trim way on down to the person in question in the photos becoming aware, then deciding that someone has gotten hold of the photo against their wish, then used it in a way that they would press charges for.

Which, the chances are slim. Because once you text, upload, share, or put a picture/video out there, you might as well have stood on top of the tallest building in the world in high wind and flung thousands of copies of that shit to the wind. Now multiply this effect. This is why many people stress the importance of the decision to actually post sensitive information like this, or share it in the first place.

This isn't something wholly unique to Lit. This is the internets.

 

[jsmiam]

My avatar is me.

&lt;---

Careful... Yer gonna get them nattering about personal info again.

The biggest concern, is that some Natharing blowhard might reply... And reply... And reply... Keeping posts alive that everyone's tired of. Then they'll reply some more. And more... And more. Keeping them going all day.

Then peace. Bedtime. Maybe. Just maybe, he'll stop. Maybe the threads he keeps alive will fade away. And just when you get your hopes up, Dawn breaks.

Then they start replying again. And again. And again. Nobody can get him to stop. The little engine that couldn't stop replying.

Tutorial about to start: I'm not replying to this post again. It's easy! You should give this a try!

 

[SecondCircle]

The biggest concern, is that some Natharing blowhard might reply... And reply... And reply... Keeping posts alive that everyone's tired of. Then they'll reply some more. And more... And more. Keeping them going all day.

Then peace. Bedtime. Maybe. Just maybe, he'll stop. Maybe the threads he keeps alive will fade away. And just when you get your hopes up, Dawn breaks.

Then they start replying again. And again. And again. Nobody can get him to stop. The little engine that couldn't stop replying.

Tutorial about to start: I'm not replying to this post again. It's easy! You should give this a try!

I so totally agree with this. Rather than spend time talking back and forth and discussing things on a discussion board, why can't we just go back to the copious amounts of SJP threads and arguments about arguments? Seems so totally obvious to me. Are there really nutjobs out there that want to actually talk to each other and swap opinions? Could you imagine?

 

[sr71plt]

Ah, the philosophy that if you can get away with it you're good to go. Interesting, but not all that surprising.

 

[Hypoxia]

Every image you see online is a copy. Wherever the source, it is copied to your computer for display. It is stored in a cache. By posting an image, one de-facto authorizes such copying. Don't want it copied? Don't post it. Or post an encrypted archive containing it, an archive only the NSA can break into.

That's one end or the pipeline. As the other end, you the viewer can certainly harvest and save whatever cache contents you wish. You can re-post such images as you wish. BUT the owner can certainly demand you remove such images, and they CAN pursue legal action, especially if you exploit such images commercially.

Which brings us here. This is a free site. The vast majority of images posted here have no financial impact on anyone. Owners are VERY unlikely to sue anyone; we are simply not worth the trouble. So honor any takedown requests and don't try to make money. And don't hotlink to owned images; that steals bandwidth.

I forget where I found my avatar but I'm sure it pre-dates 2000. Nobody has complained nor claimed ownership. I'll stick with it.

 

[jsmiam]

... (And in case anyone wonders, my avatars are book covers that I own.)

Just for fun, I'll let you know that when I'm viewing on my phone (4.5 inch screen), your current avatar at that small size looks a lot like Patrick Star from Sponge-Bob.

 

[sr71plt]

Every image you see online is a copy. Wherever the source, it is copied to your computer for display. It is stored in a cache. By posting an image, one de-facto authorizes such copying. Don't want it copied? Don't post it. Or post an encrypted archive containing it, an archive only the NSA can break into.

That's not the law. Saying that posting a copyright image to the Internet authorizes reposting the image is a bunch of crap.

You would think that authors would be totally on the other side of this. How self-possessed can you be to want your property protected but also to want to steal everyone else's for your convenience?

 

[sr71plt]

Just for fun, I'll let you know that when I'm viewing on my phone (4.5 inch screen), your current avatar at that small size looks a lot like Patrick Star from Sponge-Bob.

That might mean something to me if I had the foggiest notion who Patrick Star from Sponge-Bob is/was (or cared). The avatar will change after Christmas.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Age and Kulture bomb right there.

Sort of the 21st century's Mickey Mouse, with copious amounts of acid ingested somewhere. Anybody who reared kids in the 1990s and early 2000s knows SpongBob and Patrick. There's even a musical...

Get with the program, Pilot, get with the program. Mate, you're high kulture, you're letting us down!

That might mean something to me if I had the foggiest notion who Patrick Star from Sponge-Bob is/was (or cared). The avatar will change after Christmas.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

In general, sites don't tend to really care about these things until or unless the rights holders lawyers tell them they have to.

 

[sr71plt]

In general, sites don't tend to really care about these things until or unless the rights holders lawyers tell them they have to.

see post #13.

Gee, someone just wondering into this forum would probably think there were a lot of sleazy people here.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'm not sure very many sites care. There are literally millions of photos on the internet that are quite clearly photos of real people.

You'd have to trim way on down to the person in question in the photos becoming aware, then deciding that someone has gotten hold of the photo against their wish, then used it in a way that they would press charges for.

Which, the chances are slim. Because once you text, upload, share, or put a picture/video out there, you might as well have stood on top of the tallest building in the world in high wind and flung thousands of copies of that shit to the wind. Now multiply this effect. This is why many people stress the importance of the decision to actually post sensitive information like this, or share it in the first place.

This isn't something wholly unique to Lit. This is the internets.

No, its not just lit its pretty much any site, but that attitude is the problem, its the net, everyone is doing it, we'll do it to.

 

[sr71plt]

Age and Kulture bomb right there.

Sort of the 21st century's Mickey Mouse, with copious amounts of acid ingested somewhere. Anybody who reared kids in the 1990s and early 2000s knows SpongBob and Patrick. There's even a musical...

Get with the program, Pilot, get with the program. Mate, you're high kulture, you're letting us down!

I've heard of it, of course. Just didn't seem worth the effort of checking it out. (And I reared my kids a whole lot earlier than that. I reared them and then moved to the Mediterranean so that they could finish rearing themselves and didn't come back asking for their rooms back after I'd put them through college.)

 

[sr71plt]

No, its not just lit its pretty much any site, but that attitude is the problem, its the net, everyone is doing it, we'll do it to.

Which makes me smile just a bit every time some indignant Lit. author posts that some other Web site has stolen and is running their stories.

 

[Hypoxia]

That's not the law. Saying that posting a copyright image to the Internet authorizes reposting the image is a bunch of crap.

No, it's reality. Unless you exercise willful control of a posted item, it is GONE once you release it into the wild. You want legal protection? You must pursue it yourself. Legal theories are useless unless they are enforced.

Examples:

* You undoubtedly break numerous laws daily. It is almost impossible to live in USA without violating some code or another. Driving, working, sexing, walking -- SOMETHING you do is probably illegal in your jurisdiction. But you get away with those violations unless someone complains or a cop sees you.

* Neighbors have barking dogs. I have a right to a peaceful existence; the county has laws against noisily disruptive dogs. But to enforce those laws and gain peace I must call Animal Control in the county seat 1/2-hour away and get the county's sole officer up here soon enough to hear those dogs barking for over 15 minutes. THEN the neighbors get the US$500 ticket.

* USA financial industry broke zillions of laws leading to the last decade's economic meltdown -- and they continue with such criminality. How many have been prosecuted? Hah. Law is meaningless without enforcement.

So, reality. Grabbing images off the Net for personal and even public use is only discouraged if the owner seeks redress, and such is only likely if there's a commercial impact. Don't worry, I won't purloin your avatars. Not worth it.

 

[sr71plt]

No, it's reality. Unless you exercise willful control of a posted item, it is GONE once you release it into the wild. You want legal protection? You must pursue it yourself. Legal theories are useless unless they are enforced.

Functionally useless perhaps unless/until exercised. The legality and ethics of it never go away. You're just supporting the sleazy, especially sleazy since you are an author with rights of your own to protect.

We have become a ultra selfish and dishonest world.

Refer you too to post #13.